PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mase on March 02, 2016, 11:35:16 AM
-
So my question is, why bother? These folks can't vote. Oh, wait...
LINK (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/minnesota-dfl-caucus-candidates-speak-only-in-somali/)
-
Why can't they vote?
In order to become a US Citizen you need only show a basic ability to understand and read English.
That said, why would a candidate not speak to a crowd in the language that they more easily and fully understand? I think that shows respect for your audience.
-
Now we know why Rubio did so well there.........
-
Now we know why Rubio did so well there.........
Why is that?
-
Why can't they vote?
In order to become a US Citizen you need only show a basic ability to understand and read English.
Civics Test (https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/exceptions-accommodations)
-
Civics Test[/u][/b] (https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/exceptions-accommodations)
Your point?
A basic level of understanding is required for your interview.
Basically, the USCIS person will hand you a card with a sentence on it, and ask you to read it. Then they will give you a sentence and ask you to write it. That's it for the English language part of the USCIS test.
Here, want to see for yourself? https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/study-test/study-materials-english-test/uscis-naturalization-interview-and-test-video
(FYI, I've reviewed just about everything about naturalization requirements for personal reasons)
-
It seems to me that governance in the United States needs to be conducted in English.
-
It seems to me that governance in the United States needs to be conducted in English.
-
It seems to me that governance in the United States needs to be conducted in English.
Why? Do not new citizens benefit from the right to speak their own language? Or do you only support free speech when it's speech you agree with?
-
Why? Do not new citizens benefit from the right to speak their own language? Or do you only support free speech when it's speech you agree with?
No, I said nothing about speech. I only spoke about governance.
New citizens can speak whatever language they wish to speak. That's not the issue, and I think you know that.
But when it comes to governance - that's the word that I used - I think it should be conducted in a common language. Since our laws are all written in English, I think that is a good place to start when searching for a common language.
You want to start a group or stand on the corner and speak only Farsi? Knock yourself out.
You want to participate in local, municipal, county, borough, state, commonwealth, or federal government, whether you are elected, appointed, or an employee, and the business of the government should be conducted in the language common to the country.
-
No, I said nothing about speech. I only spoke about governance.
New citizens can speak whatever language they wish to speak. That's not the issue, and I think you know that.
But when it comes to governance - that's the word that I used - I think it should be conducted in a common language. Since our laws are all written in English, I think that is a good place to start when searching for a common language.
You want to start a group or stand on the corner and speak only Farsi? Knock yourself out.
You want to participate in local, municipal, county, borough, state, commonwealth, or federal government, whether you are elected, appointed, or an employee, and the business of the government should be conducted in the language common to the country.
Why should elected officials be prohibited from communicating with their constituents in the language that their constituents are most comfortable with? Same goes for appointed or other 'crats.
Doesn't it make sense to explain laws and regulations to citizens in a language that they understand, rather than insisting on English only, so those folks, who have a basic knowledge of the language, misunderstand their rights and responsibilities under the law.
-
Why should elected officials be prohibited from communicating with their constituents in the language that their constituents are most comfortable with? Same goes for appointed or other 'crats.
Doesn't it make sense to explain laws and regulations to citizens in a language that they understand, rather than insisting on English only, so those folks, who have a basic knowledge of the language, misunderstand their rights and responsibilities under the law.
Because pandering to every immigrant language promotes balkanization, isolation and continued segregation instead of integration.
When my Dad's family came around turn of the 20th century - once they were admitted to legally immigrate, they had to learn English - we only know Polish now if we choose to know it - I am only 3rd generation American on Dad's side.
Melting Pot and all that.
'Gimp
-
Because pandering to every immigrant language promotes balkanization, isolation and continued segregation instead of integration.
When my Dad's family came around turn of the 20th century - once they were admitted to legally immigrate, they had to learn English - we only know Polish now if we choose to know it - I am only 3rd generation American on Dad's side.
Melting Pot and all that.
'Gimp
Our tyrannical masters have made that entire model obsolete.
-
Because pandering to every immigrant language promotes balkanization, isolation and continued segregation instead of integration.
So?
When my Dad's family came around turn of the 20th century - once they were admitted to legally immigrate, they had to learn English - we only know Polish now if we choose to know it - I am only 3rd generation American on Dad's side.
Fantastic. Your family made a decision, and had the freedom to do so. And now you wish to deny that freedom to others.
-
So?
Fantastic. Your family made a decision, and had the freedom to do so. And now you wish to deny that freedom to others.
What? Who's denying whom? How do non-English speaking immigrants not have the freedom to learn English?
ESL classes are everywhere.
-
So?
Fantastic. Your family made a decision, and had the freedom to do so. And now you wish to deny that freedom to others.
Wrong, there was no choice.
Don't speak or write english, no worky - no worky no earny - no earny no housey, foody or livey.
Why would you want to ENCOURAGE populations to grow in isolation, to be segregated because they can't speak the language?
Only suicidal guilt-ridden Western Democracy societies make these stupid efforts to accommodate everyone - look at the number of languages the BBC website can translate to in real time.
What do you suppose an immigrant, legal or illegal has to speak to survive in Mexico? Russia? Cuba? Do they have 'Push 2 for English'? NOPE.
Not to mention if you are illegal in any of those countries you won't be staying very long anyway.
The naivete is like an amplifier at a Spinal Tap concert - it goes to 11.
Unbelievable.
'Gimp
-
What? Who's denying whom? How do non-English speaking immigrants not have the freedom to learn English?
ESL classes are everywhere.
Denying the freedom to not learn English.
-
Denying the freedom to not learn English.
But they're free not to learn English. And if that results in their inability to fully participate in American society, that's the choice that they made. Every choice has consequences. It's a very poor choice, and will likely be harmful to their children, but it's their choice.
I feel no compulsion to adapt society at large to accommodate the 3-4 dozen languages that are spoken in the US. If a state chooses to do that with respect to government services, that is their right.
However, assimilation is a good thing for America. Separation and isolation are not, IMO.
-
But they're free not to learn English. And if that results in their inability to fully participate in American society, that's the choice that they made. Every choice has consequences. It's a very poor choice, and will likely be harmful to their children, but it's their choice.
But what's happening here is people are being criticized for speaking to their constituents in their chosen language. And advocating that such be banned. That's profoundly anti-freedom.
I feel no compulsion to adapt society at large to accommodate the 3-4 dozen languages that are spoken in the US. If a state chooses to do that with respect to government services, that is their right.
Then what's the problem? You're not being asked to accomodate anything. Some candidates addressed their constituents in another language. Nobody forced you to listen to it, or learn that language. Why do you feel the need to control others?
-
But what's happening here is people are being criticized for speaking to their constituents in their chosen language. And advocating that such be banned. That's profoundly anti-freedom.
Then what's the problem? You're not being asked to accomodate anything. Some candidates addressed their constituents in another language. Nobody forced you to listen to it, or learn that language. Why do you feel the need to control others?
We have Open Meeting laws in order to ensure a free and open government. These laws cover live meetings, electronic meetings, and any other means used to conduct a meeting. The law is meant to ensure citizens can keep their eye on government.
Speaking in a language AT A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION that is different from the common language used in government is a formula for obfuscating and hiding in plain site the activities of said government.
This was a caucus. As far as I know caucuses aren't restricted to people from a certain nationality, religion, color, or language. People in this country may move into any precinct in the country that they wish, and should be allowed to hear the candidates that are dealing their votes. If you look at the name of the opponent, she had a western-sounding name, and presumably could not speak Somali. It is wrong that she could not understand what her opponent is saying.